Trends In Experimental Psychology Research Papers

1. Kim W, Jeong O-R, Lee S-W. On social Web sites. Inf syst. 2010;35(2):215–236. doi: 10.1016/j.is.2009.08.003.[Cross Ref]

2. Perrin A. Social media usage: 2005–2015. Pew Research Center 2015; http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/08/social-networking-usage-2005-2015/. Accessed date 12 Nov 2017.

3. Ellison NB. Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. J Comput Mediat Commun. 2007;13(1):210–230. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x.[Cross Ref]

4. Dery K, Tansley C, Hafermalz E. Hiring in the age of social media: new rules, new game. Univ Auckland Bus Rev. 2014;17(1):45–51.

5. Knight-McCord J, Cleary D, Grant N, Herron A, Lacey T, Livingston T, Emanuel R. What social media sites do college students use most? J Undergrad Ethnic Minor Psycho. 2016;2:21–26.

6. Best P, Manktelow R, Taylor B. Online communication, social media and adolescent wellbeing: a systematic narrative review. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2014;41:27–36. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.03.001.[Cross Ref]

7. Won HH, Myung W, Song GY, Lee WH, Kim JW, Carroll BJ, Kim DK. Predicting national suicide numbers with social media data. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(4):e61809. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061809.[PMC free article][PubMed][Cross Ref]

8. Valenzuela S, Halpern D, Katz JE. Social network sites, marriage well-being and divorce: survey and state-level evidence from the United States. Comput Human Behav. 2014;36:94–101. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.034.[Cross Ref]

9. Clayton RB, Nagurney A, Smith JR. Cheating, breakup, and divorce: is Facebook use to blame? Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2013;16(10):717–720. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0424.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

10. Clayton RB. The third wheel: the impact of Twitter use on relationship infidelity and divorce. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2014;17(7):425–430. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2013.0570.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

11. Lukacs V, Quan-Haase A. Romantic breakups on Facebook: new scales for studying post-breakup behaviors, digital distress, and surveillance. Inf Commun Soc. 2015;18(5):492–508. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2015.1008540.[Cross Ref]

12. Basak E, Calisir F: Publication trends in Facebook: A scientometric study. In International Conference on Trends in Economics, Humanities and Management (ICTEHM’15) March 27-28, 2015 2015; Singapore; 2015:170-173.

13. Gupta R, Kumar N, Gupta B. A bibliometric assessment of global literature on “Facebook and Libraries” during 2006–14. Inf Stud. 2015;21(2/3):133–150. doi: 10.5958/0976-1934.2015.00011.7.[Cross Ref]

14. Haustein S, Costas R, Lariviere V. Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: the effect of document properties and collaboration patterns. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(3):e0120495. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120495.[PMC free article][PubMed][Cross Ref]

15. Gan C, Wang W. Research characteristics and status on social media in China: a bibliometric and co-word analysis. Scientometrics. 2015;105(2):1167–1182. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1723-2.[Cross Ref]

16. Ho YS, Hartley J. Classic articles in psychology in the science citation index expanded: a bibliometric analysis. Br J Psychol. 2016;107(4):768–780. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12163.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

17. Piotrowski C. Mapping the research domain in the field of applied psychology: a bibliometric analysis of the emerging literature. J Indian Acad Appl Psychol. 2016;42(1):11–17.

18. Allik J. Personality psychology in the first decade of the new millennium: a bibliometric portrait. Eur J Pers. 2013;27(1):5–14. doi: 10.1002/per.1843.[Cross Ref]

19. Cañas-Guerrero I, Mazarrón FR, Pou-Merina A, Calleja-Perucho C, Díaz-Rubio G. Bibliometric analysis of research activity in the “Agronomy” category from the Web of Science, 1997–2011. Eur J Agron. 2013;50:19–28. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2013.05.002.[Cross Ref]

20. Hew J-J. Hall of fame for mobile commerce and its applications: a bibliometric evaluation of a decade and a half (2000–2015) Telemat Inform. 2017;34(1):43–66. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2016.04.003.[Cross Ref]

21. Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, scopus, Web of science, and google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008;22(2):338–342. doi: 10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

22. Kulkarni AV, Aziz B, Shams I, Busse JW. Comparisons of citations in Web of science, scopus, and google scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA. 2009;302(10):1092–1096. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1307.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

23. Thomson Reuters. Web of Science Core Collection. 2017; http://thomsonreuters.com/en/products-services/scholarly-scientific-research/scholarly-search-and-discovery/web-of-science-core-collection.html. Accessed 7 Jan 2017.

24. Thomson Reuters. 2015 Journal Citation Reports® 2016 ; https://jcr.incites.thomsonreuters.com/. Accessed 4 Jan 2017.

25. Meng J, Martinez L, Holmstrom A, Chung M, Cox J. Research on social networking sites and social support from 2004 to 2015: a narrative review and directions for future research. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2017;20(1):44–51. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2016.0325.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

26. Shi J, Poorisat T, Salmon CT. The use of social networking sites (SNSs) in health communication campaigns: review and recommendations. Health Commun. 2018;33(1):49–56. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2016.1242035.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

27. Hamm MP, Chisholm A, Shulhan J, Milne A, Scott SD, Klassen TP, Hartling L. Social media use by health care professionals and trainees: a scoping review. Acad Med. 2013;88(9):1376–1383. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31829eb91c.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

28. Li J. Privacy policies for health social networking sites. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20(4):704–707. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001500.[PMC free article][PubMed][Cross Ref]

29. Moorhead SA, Hazlett DE, Harrison L, Carroll JK, Irwin A, Hoving C. A new dimension of health care: systematic review of the uses, benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(4):e85. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1933.[PMC free article][PubMed][Cross Ref]

30. Ventola CL. Social media and health care professionals: benefits, risks, and best practices. Phram Ther. 2014;39(7):491–520.[PMC free article][PubMed]

31. Antheunis ML, Tates K, Nieboer TE. Patients’ and health professionals’ use of social media in health care: motives, barriers and expectations. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;92(3):426–431. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.06.020.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

32. Bielsa S, Porcel JM. Trends in pleural effusion research. Pleura. 2016;3:237399751664655. doi: 10.1177/2373997516646555.[Cross Ref]

33. Yun EJ, Yoon DY, Kim BN, Min KJ, Kim BY, Ku YJ. Endovascular treatment for extracranial carotid stenosis: a 10-year bibliometric analysis. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2015;49(1–2):16–23. doi: 10.1177/1538574415585128.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

34. Vioque J, Ramos JM, Navarrete-Munoz EM, Garcia-de-la-Hera M. A bibliometric study of scientific literature on obesity research in PubMed (1988–2007) Obes Rev. 2010;11(8):603–611. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2009.00647.x.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

35. Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM, Awang R, Waring WS. Bibliometric profile of the global scientific research on methanol poisoning (1902–2012) J Occup Med Toxicol. 2015;10:17. doi: 10.1186/s12995-015-0062-9.[PMC free article][PubMed][Cross Ref]

36. Bruggmann D, Pulch K, Klingelhofer D, Pearce CL, Groneberg DA. Ovarian cancer: density equalizing mapping of the global research architecture. Int J Health Geogr. 2017;16(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s12942-016-0076-2.[PMC free article][PubMed][Cross Ref]

37. Gotting M, Schwarzer M, Gerber A, Klingelhofer D, Groneberg DA. Pulmonary hypertension: scientometric analysis and density-equalizing mapping. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(1):e0169238. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169238.[PMC free article][PubMed][Cross Ref]

38. Gal D, Glanzel W, Sipido KR. Mapping cross-border collaboration and communication in cardiovascular research from 1992 to 2012. Eur Heart J. 2017;38(16):1249–1258.[PMC free article][PubMed]

39. Orwat MI, Kempny A, Bauer U, Gatzoulis MA, Baumgartner H, Diller GP. The importance of national and international collaboration in adult congenital heart disease: a network analysis of research output. Int J Cardiol. 2015;195:155–162. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.05.116.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

40. Khan A, Choudhury N, Uddin S, Hossain L, Baur LA. Longitudinal trends in global obesity research and collaboration: a review using bibliometric metadata. Obes Rev. 2016;17(4):377–385. doi: 10.1111/obr.12372.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

41. Adams J. Collaborations: the rise of research networks. Nature. 2012;490(7420):335–336. doi: 10.1038/490335a.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

42. Back MD, Stopfer JM, Vazire S, Gaddis S, Schmukle SC, Egloff B, Gosling SD. Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization. Psychol Sci. 2010;21(3):372–374. doi: 10.1177/0956797609360756.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

43. Correa T, Hinsley AW, de Zúñiga HG. Who interacts on the Web?: the intersection of users’ personality and social media use. Comput Human Behav. 2010;26(2):247–253. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.003.[Cross Ref]

44. Lin K-Y, Lu H-P. Why people use social networking sites: an empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Comput Human Behav. 2011;27(3):1152–1161. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.009.[Cross Ref]

45. Park N, Kee KF, Valenzuela S. Being immersed in social networking environment: Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2009;12(6):729–733. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2009.0003.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

46. Pempek TA, Yermolayeva YA, Calvert SL. College students’ social networking experiences on Facebook. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2009;30(3):227–238. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.010.[Cross Ref]

47. Raacke J, Bonds-Raacke J. MySpace and Facebook: applying the uses and gratifications theory to exploring friend-networking sites. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2008;11(2):169–174. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2007.0056.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

48. Ross C, Orr ES, Sisic M, Arseneault JM, Simmering MG, Orr RR. Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Comput Human Behav. 2009;25(2):578–586. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.024.[Cross Ref]

49. Steinfield C, Ellison NB, Lampe C. Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: a longitudinal analysis. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2008;29(6):434–445. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.002.[Cross Ref]

50. Subrahmanyam K, Reich SM, Waechter N, Espinoza G. Online and offline social networks: use of social networking sites by emerging adults. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2008;29(6):420–433. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.003.[Cross Ref]

51. Zhao S, Grasmuck S, Martin J. Identity construction on Facebook: digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Comput Human Behav. 2008;24(5):1816–1836. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.012.[Cross Ref]

52. Zyoud SH, Waring WS, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM, Rahhal B, Awang R. Intravenous lipid emulsion as an antidote for the treatment of acute poisoning: a Bibliometric Analysis of Human and Animal Studies. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2016;119(5):512–519. doi: 10.1111/bcpt.12609.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

53. Zyoud SH. Global research trends of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus: a bibliometric analysis. BMC Infect Dis. 2016;16:255. doi: 10.1186/s12879-016-1600-5.[PMC free article][PubMed][Cross Ref]

54. Zyoud SH, Waring WS, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM. Global research production in glyphosate intoxication from 1978 to 2015: a bibliometric analysis. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2017;36(10):997–1006. doi: 10.1177/0960327116678299.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

55. Sweileh WM, AbuTaha AS, Sawalha AF, Al-Khalil S, Al-Jabi SW, Zyoud SH. Bibliometric analysis of worldwide publications on multi-, extensively, and totally drug—resistant tuberculosis (2006–2015) Multidiscip Respir Med. 2016;11:45. doi: 10.1186/s40248-016-0081-0.[PMC free article][PubMed][Cross Ref]

56. Zyoud SH. Dengue research: a bibliometric analysis of worldwide and Arab publications during 1872–2015. Virol J. 2016;13:78. doi: 10.1186/s12985-016-0534-2.[PMC free article][PubMed][Cross Ref]

57. Appio FP, Martini A, Massa S, Testa S. Unveiling the intellectual origins of social media-based innovation: insights from a bibliometric approach. Scientometrics. 2016;108(1):355–388. doi: 10.1007/s11192-016-1955-9.[Cross Ref]

Experimental Psychology

The journal for experimental research in psychology

Read the ONLINE journal at econtent.hogrefe.com!

ISSN:
ISSN-L 1618-3169, ISSN-Print 1618-3169, ISSN-Online 2190-5142
Impact Factor:
1.829
Indexed in:
Current Contents/Social and Behavioral Sciences (CC/S&BS), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Medline, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, ERIH, Scopus, and EMCare.
Editors:
Christoph Stahl (Editor-in-chief)
View full editorial board

Order information

The Experimental Psychology is published bimonthly. Only calendar year subscriptions are available. Prices exclude shipping and handling charges, as detailed below. All subscriptions include print issues and access to full-text online.

Information for subscribers

Institutions 2018

+ postage and handling US $24.00


Individuals 2018

+ postage and handling US $24.00


Single issue 2018

Single online issues may be purchased online at Hogrefe eContent.com.

Single print issues may be ordered (subject to availability) using this order enquiry form.

+ postage and handling


Free sample copy

0 comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *